Was at an association meeting Monday night and we went through the NFHS's annual survey on rules/rule changes/potential rule changes.

Some of the questions (all these from memory, so I may miss some):

-Has eliminating 2 players from the FT line cleaned up play?

Personally, I don't think it has done much of anything. Not allowing the rebounders to leave until the release has cleaned up play. Actually, it eliminated the requirement that the officials work hard to officiate the positioning they used to do, but that's another argument.

-Should they leave things the way it is or go to having the low spot empty next season (like NCAAW)?

No real opinion from me, although I would think that the defense would probably get even more rebounds.

-Should the NFHS go to 16-minute halves instead of 8-minute quarters?

There was loud opposition to this from the group. I don't understand why. Two fewer last second shots sounds like a good thing to me.

-Should the NFHS eliminate the 5-second closely guarded rule while dribbling?

Are they trying to turn this into NCAAW or what? I think this only works with a shot clock. Oh, the next question:

-Should the NFHS allow shot clocks by state association adoption?

I think these probably WERE put together for a reason. I'd like to go one step further and eliminate the 10-second backcourt violation if we have a shot clock, but I can't imagine that happening.

Actually, one of my friends at the meeting made an astute observation -- just one more clueless person on the table to worry about :)

There were also questions about taunting, pregame rituals distracting opponents, and other sportsmanship questions.

Oh, and they asked us how we feel about the kicked ball "approved" signal. Does anyone else think that they would've been much better off just slipping the signal onto the chart without comment? I mean, who DIDN'T use a kick signal prior to this season?

Here's my two cents:

1. I think it has been cleaned up a little more on the FT lanes. I've noticed that I haven't had nearly as many rebounding fouls as before.

2. I would like to see the adoption of the NCAAW on FT's. I think it can only help even more.

3. NO!!! 16 min halves I see the point of less last second shots but usually it is only a problem in the 4th with the game tied. This year I've only had 3 games out of 60 decided by the last second bucket this year. I also think at this level its a good break to refocus the kids and a good time for more teaching. (I know probably a pipe dream).

4. YES!!!! YES!!! YES!!!! Get rid of the five second count on the dribble. Yes I agree reward good defense but this isn't the way to do it.

5. I'm undecided on the shot clock. I see good and bad. Have to do more thinking on the subject.

How about....

Should NF go to the college mechanic where you report and stay table side in 3-man? I think so. You have the stones to make the call, have the stones to explain what you had if you need to.

I agree you cant go to the womens style 5 seconds w/o a shot clock. I agree HS is not ready for shot clock. Heck, sometimes for the lower level games, you are lucky to get a qualified person to even run the clock let alone understand / run the shot clock.

16 min halves would shorten the length of games in my opinion. I'm guessing 5-10 min a game? Would help get that varsity game on time without taking real game time away from the players.

My only thought about the free throw deal is that in 2-man, the trail has to watch his guys in the lane, the shooter and the 3 other guys outside the 3pt. line. Memo to NF we can't realistically do this in two man. Now, I dont know how big of a deal this is but it's out there.

Larks

By eliminating two 1 minute periods you save 10 minutes a game? Not sure I see how that happens. But I do agree that going to 16 minute halves would be a good idea.

And I agree with you on the calling official going to the table for 3 man. Its a great system, IMO.

End of qtr before timer starts...30 sec - a min
break - 1 min
Break huddle and getting ready...30 sec - a min

2-3 min x 2 = 5-6 min.

Ok, 10 min is a stretch...but 5 min...Easy. Multiply this by the FR / JV double header ahead of the varsity game and you save at least 10 min.

Of course, the only folks that care about this are usually just the varsity refs!

You forgot to account for the extra real time that is used as the intensity for the last 30 seconds of the 1st and 3rd quarters goes way up, especially in a close game. Vie-ing (wow, spelling!?!?!) for that last basket can really stretch out the last 30 seconds or so. At least, in JV girls it can.

If they go to 16 minute halves, I would think they would add another timeout per team. I guess the person to ask would be Chuck -- do they get more in MA than the 5 the FED gives each team?

2 changes I would like to see

1. Go to team control fouls like NCAA.(this one might get in)

2. eliminate coaches calling TO ( this one will not)

Just my two cents.
 

It has at least made it easier to officiate. Not sure it cleaned up much of anything. The first two players on the side of the lane, still cause contact with each other. But I do not see that as a bad thing.


Leave it the way it is. You are just going to force the defender to push more in my opinion. More rebounding fouls it will cause if you ask me.


Yes!!! I think the game would have a better flow. And if they are worried about taking away an opportuntiy to teach the kids, add another full timeout. The current system only creates more possiblity for stress with a last second shot for the players, coaches and officials.

No. This is not college women's basketball. These players will hold the ball dribbling around and you will have more possiblities for fouls to be called. Keep this the way it is. That is why the NCAA Men's got rid of that rule.

No. I really think you will cause more problems. We have a hard enough time trying to get folks that know how to run the clock the way it is, now we are going to add another fool to run the shot clock and screw that up too?

I feel the same way.

Not only do I like the fact that this is an approved mechanic, but they should allow us to use some other mechanics that are widely used. I still point to the other direction of the court on fouls that are committed by the offense or the team in control. Not only does this explain what I have, no one misunderstands this mechanic. I go thru the drill doing all the other mechanics, then I point to the other end of the floor. This has become a habit, and no one is confused by it. I have not even been told to stop doing it by IHSA officials. Maybe that will happen, but not yet. I think the NF has to open their thinking and start being more descriptive on their signals.

Peace

Re: Just my two cents.
 

I "ship" every foul that goes the other direction, too. It tells my partners and everyone else immediately what we have.

I went to a playoff game this week and watched a good friend work. 2-officials in our little neck of the woods. Both used college mechanics on all the out of bounds calls. I thought it looked great -- DECISIVE. No delay while the hand went up. I'll never understand why the FED and why local associations make such a huge deal about this. My theory is that it is all about power. :)

--Rich

My 2 cents worth.
I think the two less players in the lane during FT's has made it better at least a little bit. What I would like to see is being able to enter the lane upon the release. It would help make things easier for us.

In CA, we do have a shot clock. I cant imagine games without one.

16 minute halves would be a good idea if the each team got an extra time out per game. Otherwise it should stay the way it is.

Going table side on 3 person mechanics is a good idea. Better to be in line with what is done at the college level.

Well here's my position on things....

With 2 less players on the lane you haven't really cleaned things up a whole lot (outside of having 2 less players to commit fouls, everybody else is still going hard), but it does clear the picture up in that sight lines are a little better. Just a little easier to officials.

As for the positioning of the players, I say leave them alone. Maybe nostalgia speaking here, may be my dislike of change, may be alot of things speaking, but I don't like it for some reason. Probably the thought of increased fouls is the biggest deterrent for me.

16 min halves vs 8 minute quarter - I don't care to change things. Let the kids play 8 min quarters. Holding for that last shot is strategy, change to halves you lose 2 strategic plays per game. I also agree that it takes 2 periods of coaching away (adding 2 TO's per game, 1 for each team, doesn't completely balance this in my mind). Also some of nostalgia and such in this one.

5 second closely guarded count must stay in place - dribling and holding. Eliminating it would penalize good defense. Even moderate ball handlers can keep the ball from a good defender and draw a foul if his only goal is to run clock. The rule as it is forces action on the part of the offense, which is typically the side that should be moving the game along.

Shot clock @ High school level = bad. It might speed the game up and add a little strategy late in games, but what about proper training for operators. I don't think you would get it at the HS level. Also think of the cost of adding the equipment. Large schools could handle it, but smaller schools (especially here in Oklahoma, where the top story on the news every night seems to be how can we make more money for public schools and where there was talk of charging players a fee to sign up for public school athletic teams) I don't think it would fly.

As for the kick ball approved signal, I've got no problems with it. Sure alot of us were using it improperly before, but now its legitimate. If they didn't approve it, then any official that wanted to use the grizzly bear over-the-back signal or the travel signal for a throw in violation couldn't really be repremanded by anyone that was using the, at the time, unapproved kick signal. Its kinda hard to say I can use the unapproved kick signal, but you can't use <insert unapproved signal>. Now this is a moot point, because the kick signal is gravy.

[Great synopsis and thought provoking. My 2C on a few:


Some of the questions (all these from memory, so I may miss some):

-Has eliminating 2 players from the FT line cleaned up play?

I would like to keep it with the current rule. Measuring how well this year's change has cleaned up play is hard but the rule change definitely made FT easier to officiate and perhaps therefore better for fans and players. Low Block empty? Nope. For HS girls we wouldn't notice, but for men we will be calling a lot of holding and pushing on or for the number two position as they try to go around the block position to occupy that HUGE seemingly empty space. Keeping the current line up is the way to go.


-Should the NFHS go to 16-minute halves instead of 8-minute quarters?
Keep it the way it is: High school coaches need all SEVEN of their timeouts, although I am always amazed at the number that aren't used.

-Should the NFHS eliminate the 5-second closely guarded rule while dribbling?
Keep it. Elimination is one more step of ignoring or not rewarding great defense. If they are going to change this area, redefining or eliminating the 6 foot definition makes more sense. Officials' judgment should be used for determining when a player is closely guarded.

1. New FT rules? Can't detect any real difference. I think the women's rule stinks as it basically prevents the defense from rebounding at all unless the ball comes off long or the defender sweeps around the outside to steal the position. I still think players should be allowed to leave on the release anyway. The NFHS bailed out bad officiating by adding this rule.

2. Quarters vs. halves? Stick with the quarters. I think varsity games should be 10 minute quarters instead of 8. They're high school kids - they can handle it.

3. Shot clocks? Yes, but the drawback will be having good table staff and ready officials.

A coach's perspective.

With all the TV coverage NCAA games get these days, I would think most games are given the TV time-outs every 4 min. You won't get that in a high school game. The Quarter breaks give both teams a chance to rest, regroup, get a drink, and plan the next quarter. For me, teaching 7th grade, it gives me a great spot to sub players. Since I play all my guys, I can divide the quarters in half and make my subs. Otherwise I would have to plan on using a TO to get the same timing and ability to talk to the new group as they go in.

As far as a shot clock, I have never understood this. A shot clock takes away a valuable strategy. Why is it such a problem to allow a team to run their offense for 50 seconds or 2 minutes. A shot clock will create more rushed ill-advised shots at the high school level.

Personally, I think the shot clock was put in so that great strategist like Dean Smith and Bobby Knight could not put games away with thier ball control techniques. The shot clock places more value on an athlete, and less value on a skilled player.

How about NO changes?
 

You know what has actually been troubling me (more as a coach than an official)? Given the current trend, it seems like the NF feels as though we HAVE to have a few rule changes every year. I'm not talking about clarifications or officials' mechanics, but actual rule changes. As a coach, I will freely admit that many coaches do not have adequate rules knowledge, but I am increasingly disturbed by the number of officials who do not have excellent rules knowledge. I have always admired my official friends who take such pride in really being rules experts - that's why I enjoy the discussions on the board so much.

But changing rules every year only serves to exacerbate these difficulties for all involved - coaches, refs, and players. In some ways I think the constant changes also discredit the work of very good officials. For good officials, points of emphasis should be enough. If officials commit to these points, they shouldn't need to be enforced by constantly-changing rules. The lane spot tampering is a good example. Find a way that works and leave it alone.

I know some will say (correctly) that many officials will not commit to the POE's, and so the emphases must be enhanced with rules changes, but this is troubling as well. If the NF or a state or local officials' association wants things called a certain way, officials should consider acquiescing for the greater good.

The other consideration (as a coach) has to do with teaching (although I know of your collective antipathy toward many coaches' ability to do so). The idea of eliminating the 5-second count is a good example here. This rule is a great tool for a coach who is trying to teach the value of good defensive footwork. Altering it will not only make it harder for us to teach this skill, but also invalidate some of the teaching we've already done.

So my question for the board and the NF is this: Do we (or can we) ever consider freezing the rules (ie no substantive changes - only clarifications) for one or more years? Would this even be possible? I'm not suggesting that we never improve rules that simply aren't working, but I would like to see these changes approached more judiciously and slowly than is the current trend.

I'm interested in the thoughts of the members of this forum.

Joe

Re: How about NO changes?
 

Unfortunately, it seems the NF people feel the need to justify their existence every year with rule changes. If you look at baseball, the Official Baseball Rules (used by MLB and most youth orgs) haven't been changed at all in at least 7 or 8 years. NFHS rules on the other hand usually have a full page of the rulebook devoted to such important changes as uniform design or coaches' jackets. A lot of people complain that we should just use extant rules codes for HS sports, so the HS people need to do things to stand out.

Ok, a few comments.

As Rich mentioned, we use halves up here in MA. Additionally, we do not use 30-second TO's. To make up for not using the 30's, we give each team an additional full TO. And to make up for not using the mandatory TO at the 8:00 mark of each half, we give each team an additional full TO. So each team ends up with 5 60-second TO's per game.

That's a lot, but as missinglink pointed out, they rarely all get used. "Rarely" may be strong; but we usually do not grant 10 TO's in a game.

Having said all that, I really like halves. I think it keeps the game flowing. It eliminates two last-second situations per game (although we also use the shot-clock in MA, so that adds last-second situations). And since the coaches get an extra TO, if they feel they need that extra "teaching moment" in the middle of the half, they can take it. It actually gives the coach more flexibility, b/c they can take the extra TO anytime, not just at the 8:00 mark. They can "bank" it for late in the game. I don't see any down-side to halves at all.

I don't care at all about the rules about positioning on the lane; except that I would not like to see the NCAAW rule adopted. Go to the NBA rule before the NCAAW, in my opinion. Why? I just don't like it. I would also like it if they went back to entering the lane on the release.

I am adamantly opposed to removing the closely-guarded rule. As I've said before, the closely-guarded rule is not intended to reward the defense. It is intended to require the offense to play a team game. If you allow one person to dribble the ball for 45 seconds until they "break down" their defender(s), you remove the element of team play. You get NBA-wannabes trying every shake-n-bake move and forgetting about passing. And this is true regardless of whether or not a shot-clock is used. Give the kid 5 seconds to make his move to the basket or give it up. Even the NBA has come to realize that in some situations, a 5-second closely-guarded count is necessary. It's the "back-to-the-basket" rule. My vote is (staunchly) in favor of keeping the closely guarded rule exactly the way it is.

I like the shot clock for most varsity games. It's pretty silly to use it at the Freshman level, IMO. Varsity teams should be able to run a play and get a shot off in 30 or 35 seconds. But at lower levels (even JV, in some areas) the skill may not be there to run a play successfully the first or even second time through. They should have all the time they need to practice their offense, since that's essentially what Freshman and JV programs are.

The drawback is, of course, that many many many shot clock operators have no idea how to run the shot clock correctly. I've posted my pre-game instructions for the shot-clock operator before, but without the search function, I have no idea where the thread is.

Ok, now onto the soapbox. FED should adopt the NCAA "point of interruption" procedure for technical fouls. FED should adopt some form of the NCAA "team control" foul. FED should adopt the NBA's rule that only players on the floor may request a TO.

I only agree with the TO, Chuck, but I would like to see POI on a double foul.

The T penalty should be harsh. Sportsmanship should be stressed at the HS level and loss of possession emphasizes this.
Team control doesn't do it for me even in the NCAA. I don't like the fact that if two guys are pushing for position away from the ball and a foul is called on one of them, whether we shoot free throws depends on whose team had the ball. I think it is unfair to the defense. They seem to be penalized more severely for the same act. I also know what will quickly follow: team control during a throw-in. I don't want the NFHS to change this, it would be a nightmare to see some HS officials trying to explain to a coach why a certain play is not a backcourt violation.

Agree. The FED has made "sportsmanship" a POE for the last umpteen years. They are obviously very concerned about it, and rightfully so, imo. The penalty is supposed to discourage unsporting acts, and reducing the penalty would probably be counter-productive to that aim.

We have shot clocks, 30 for girls and 35 for boys, in North Dakota HS large schools. Seems to work fine. Usually it is the same person who does the girls as the boys shot clock and they are good at it. It is not rocket science. Just get the same person trained to do it.

As for FT, I think there are fewer rebounding fouls but it reduces the chances of the offense getting a FT rebound. I think that is part of the game. Good officials never had problems with FT rebounds.

Nevada, these two sentiments don't go together. You don't like team control b/c the penalty for the foul differs based on who has the ball. But you like the T foul rule, even tho the penalty differs based on who has the ball.

We always say that the T is just another foul, just another tool. So let's have the penalty reflect that. JMO.

What good does a shot clock do?

I don't see any reason for it in High School, or college for that matter.

For one it keeps an over matched team from making it a 10-
8 ball game.

That's only important for the TV networks.

If a team uses the rules and their particular skills to their advantage, then good for them. Shame on the "better" team for playing along and not forcing the action.

Why change from quarters to halves? I don't see any distinct advantage. This business about eliminating two last second shots, who cares. They play 'em and we officiate 'em. If we are going to make a change it shouldn't be just for the sake of change or a preference; it should be because it is necessary for the good of the game. This is a "grass is greener" issue. If the NF made that change we would be here next year with just as many people suggesting that we change right back to quarters. Then there are suggestions to change the time out rule to reflect the need for more teaching opportunities. Absurd. The game is good. Look at the rules and ask yourself, "what absolutely needs to be changed for the good of the game?" That is it. Otherwise, changing rules like some people change underwear seems a little tired to me.

I think halves work better -- most rec programs play halves (at least where I've lived) and the colleges play halves. Only the schools and NBA play quarters.

Instead of an artifically placed timeout, let the teams have more and use them when they want.

I don't see the big deal either, but I'd rather let the teams decide when we're going to have a 1-minute break.

Chuck,
I guess we view this situation differently. I don't understand how the penalty differs for a T. The way I see it, it is two shots and the ball for the OTHER team. It doesn't matter who had what before the T.

With a team control foul, I feel like I have to check my calendar to find out if it is the third Tuesday of the month, before I can decide whether we're shooting. Personally, I think we should shoot the bonus, if applicable, on ALL fouls, player control included.


But on another note I was puzzled by this:
Uh, yeah, most of us do this regularly. :) You don't approve?